One thing I've wondered about Church Christianity is when the words or Paul contridict with the teachings of Jesus, they seem to reject Jesus and take the words of Paul?
Jesus taught to sinners. I would argue that Judas wasn't a great example of someone who was free of sin.
It's too easy just to be like "Oh, Paul wrote the word of God" when he wrote his letters so Paul is equivalent to Jesus, and I think it is a logical error. We might as well be building altars and worshipping Paul if we are just going to reject Jesus.
My personal opinion is that Paul corrupted Christianity and led the religion astray.
Is Paul equivalent to Jesus? If not then how do you explain the many many contradictions between their writing and teachings? Either the word of Jesus was the word or God or the word of Paul was? They can't both be true.
This is why I reject Paul's writings almost entirely in my path, and I definately don't do what the Church does and prioritize above the teachings of Jesus when they do contridict.
This thread I am looking for a respectful debate.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Paul was a pharisee but his word is divinely inspired. He brought rabbinical judaic reasoning to clarifying Christ's word for the day to day. "Do unto others as you would have done to you" is a lot more abstract of a commandment than you might realize
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Where I'm working from, although he may have been Jeusus disciple, he was one of the most conservative of them if not the most, especially when compared to Luke or Thomas. I mean, there was clearly even disagreememt among the disciples, why was Paul the one placed above Jesus and the others censored from history?
I disagree with the fact that he was divinely inspired, I think that is just a way to shut down criticism and thought. The Jesus I met would have wanted me to question his words and be able to think critically. It seems like he tried to free us from outdated laws that were no longer relevant, hence why Christians can eat pork, not just add a new set of outdated laws.
I think he was a man that was taught by Jesus but just human, he still had his own beliefs, judgements, desires present in any human. What I am saying is that Paul wasn't the son of God, or free of Sin regardless on what the Church claims.
I would argue that not even Jesus was free of sin, it's not blasphemy. Jesus didn't cast the first stone. I don't think less of him for that and can relate to him better than being some sinless entity. Jesus had anger, he got angry at the money lenders in the temples. He wasn't perfect because perfection doesn't exist.
Jesus is able to accept and forgive imperfections because he isn't perfect.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The issue is I worship Jesus for how he truly was and not some bastarized version presenting him as perfect.
We are all sinners, why should we be ashamed of that fact? Jesus didn't cast the first stone when he stated "may thee without sin, cast the first stone." Is it so wrong to acknowledge there is a possibility that even the son of God can make mistakes? God in the bible made plenty of them.
I argue that not even Jesus or God was free of sin, why should Paul be considered as sinless?
Name one thing in the universe that is perfect. Clearly the world is far from it. Perfection doesn't exist.
The original sin that severs us from the divine is ignorance. I acknowledge my ignorance, why can't you? Following without questioning instead of listening to your heart or intuition is exactly what Jesus tried to warn us against.
If you want to know why there are so few Christian followers saved during the Day of Judgement? Blame the fricking church for keeping people trapped in ignorance.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's straight up blasphemy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's the truth.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What is sin? Give me your definition
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Do you know what blasphemy of the holy spirit means and why it won't be forgiven? It means living your life with the absence of the spiritual and not developing yourself to live your lives to follow those teachings. It's as simple as the Golden rule, because we are all part of the divine, if you harm someone, you're harming God.
There is nothing spiritual and Jesus out of using his name to hate or oppress others. There is nothing spiritual about following without the freedom to question using your heart, spirit or soul. There is nothing spiritual about using the concept of guilt so people are scared to question and discover higher spiritual truths and a lot of churches are blasphmering the holy spirit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Completely agree, however there
is a difference in “can god sin?” and “god can sin”.
One is a question
and one is a truth 
statement.
The mine and I believe
the common understanding of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 
is the denial of God even up and to Death 
because upon death 
you're no longer able to repent.
Again I really
think 
you should 
talk to a psychiatrist. Please 
get yourself 
help. You seem mentally 
worse than before 
I took a break from the site
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ignorance.
Simple one word explanation, particularly ignorance of the spiritual, ignorance of God, ignorance of the self. Even Bhudda said that sin was caused by ignorance.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bhuddism does not have a concept of sin.
God defines sin because sin is a denial of god and his will.
Therefore God is sinless because his will defines sin because god is perfect.
If you're legit you seriously
need a psychiatrist. Not in a mean way but please 
actually 
seek help. I hope you have a wonderful day and actually 
get the help you need
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
s*x is dirty gross sin you should be shameful of, pervert.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context